rockdoc123 wrote:why use the term "acidification" when "reduced alkalinity" is accurate?
Why use the term "warming" when "reduced coolness" is accurate?
dohboi wrote:As I understand it, it is partly driven by Greenland Ice Sheet melt, which has been going off the charts this year.
By Santiago Arcos ABOARD ECUADOREAN NAVY AIRCRAFT, Aug 9 (Reuters) – Ecuador’s navy is conducting surveillance of a massive Chinese fishing fleet that is operating near the protected waters of the Galapagos Islands, amid concerns about the environmental impact of fishing in the area of the ecologically sensitive islands.
The navy conducted a patrol mission on Friday that included a flyover of the region where the hulking vessels are fishing, as well as reconnaissance by military patrol ships. A total of 340 vessels are currently in the area, the navy said, compared with some 260 reported last month.
GHung wrote:No matter how we slice or dice things, the planet is warming, ice is melting, sea levels are rising, weather is changing, and human behavior, collectively, will continue to contribute to these processes until economic and natural forcing changes that.
No collective hive mind. Only collective consequences.
I don't post here much lately. Grew tired of the nauseatingly self-serving rationalizations day after day.
GHung wrote:No matter how we slice or dice things, the planet is warming, ice is melting, sea levels are rising, weather is changing, and human behavior, collectively, will continue to contribute to these processes until economic and natural forcing changes that.
No collective hive mind. Only collective consequences.
I don't post here much lately. Grew tired of the nauseatingly self-serving rationalizations day after day.
vtsnowedin wrote: While the problems you state are real viable solutions are few or even none existent.
But yet there are constant calls to action even though those actions are known to be fruitless.Ibon wrote:vtsnowedin wrote: While the problems you state are real viable solutions are few or even none existent.
I think honestly everyone knows there are no solutions except the consequences themselves that will collectively put us through the gristmill of an increasingly volatile biosphere with repercussions on food production, pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, etc. And thus we will grind down to some new carrying capacity as a species having brought with us some cultural adaptations along the way that may or may not embed a set of morals and ethics that will enable us to persevere this experiment of a modern technological civilization. Or we may fall to a level of complexity resembling the middle ages.
There is no silver bullet solution, just the catalytic nature of the consequences themselves.
We all know there is no "solution"
vtsnowedin wrote: But yet there are constant calls to action even though those actions are known to be fruitless
vtsnowedin wrote:All possible solutions that avoid major climate change start with killing off two to three billion people by some none nuclear war means.
vtsnowedin wrote:In the mean time you might install some solar panels and switch to an electric vehicle charged from them if you calculate that that course might be a slight help and improve you and yours chances of surviving.
vtsnowedin wrote:Other then that I know of no course that is more then eyewash and a waste of resources and money. (Yes I'm talking about the Green new deal).
dissident wrote:The only solution to global warming is to stop the 30+ billion tons of human CO2 emissions per year. And it is already too late for it to be a full solution since we would be riding out the locked in accumulated effect for thousands of years. But, predictably, humanity will keep pumping its precious garbage-factory GDP until it can no longer physically do so. Then natural correction in the form of mass dieoff is inevitable.
Calling the tech "solutions" science is not justified. It is engineering. Any tech fix is extremely short lived and requires ongoing maintenance that will eventually break the bank. A lot of these tech fixes are just idiotic, like ones suggesting SO2 injection via commercial aircraft. That is utterly pointless since these aircraft fly under 12 km and mostly outside the tropics. The SO2 needs to be injected above 30 km in the tropics to have the induced sulfate layer to cover enough of both hemispheres to matter. Over 10 million tons per year need to be injected. But this is a current estimate. BAU will drive it much higher. And we will be losing the ozone layer in the process since the sulfate acts as heterogeneous chemistry agent for catalytic break down of ozone.
vtsnowedin wrote:real viable solutions are few or even none existent.
Ibon wrote:I think honestly everyone knows there are no solutions
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 283 guests